Decoding NAEP

Oct 27, 2025 | Teaching & Learning

Campaign for Grade-Level Reading

LEO Team

“I am heartbroken about how little you hear about educational outcomes from our leaders. That’s both sides of the aisle. That’s federal and state. Today, we really need our leadership to step up and restore the sense that improving educational outcomes is a national imperative.”

– John King, Jr., J.D., Ed.D., U.S. Secretary of Education, 2015–2017

Released in January 2025, the scores from the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) delivered a sobering reality check for American schools. Nearly 40% of fourth graders scored Below Basic in reading, with historically marginalized communities seeing the steepest declines. These outcomes ― and the eight-year downward trend they are a part of ― represent not only academic challenges but also broader risks to the nation’s economic competitiveness, equity, and democratic vitality.

In response, the Campaign for Grade-Level Reading (CGLR) convened a nine-part webinar series, Decoding NAEP, bringing together 50 leading educators, policymakers, and researchers. The discussions revealed a striking consensus: NAEP, long hailed as the “Nation’s Report Card,” remains the country’s most reliable benchmark for academic progress. Amid rapid change and cultural divides, NAEP’s consistency provides a rare national anchor of accountability.

Across the nine sessions, panelists underscored four pillars for reversing achievement declines: 1) prioritizing student achievement above all other concerns; 2) building and using high-quality data systems; 3) responding with evidence-based strategies; and 4) ensuring strong, consistent implementation supported by leadership and resources. They stressed that history suggests progress is possible. From the 1990s through the mid-2000s, NAEP data helped drive bipartisan reforms that lifted achievement and narrowed gaps. But momentum faltered in the last decade, leaving students ― particularly those from economically challenged backgrounds ― further behind. The

pandemic compounded these trends, leading to a “scissor effect” with top performers holding steady while the lowest performers fell further back.

Despite the bleak averages, bright spots emerged. Alabama, Mississippi, and school districts in Baltimore, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., showed measurable gains, often linked to investments in some of the “big bets” identified by CGLR, such as teacher professional development and coaching, high-dosage tutoring, literacy reforms, and attendance strategies. Catholic schools, charter schools, and Department of Defense Education Activity schools also stood out, credited with strong cultures, clear missions, consistent curricula, and flexibility.

The panelists cautioned against overreliance on averages, which mask stark differences by race, income, and community context. They noted chronic absenteeism, teacher morale, and childhood trauma surfaced as critical barriers to learning that NAEP alone cannot explain but that deeply shape outcomes. Still, the consensus was clear: Achievement gaps are not destiny, and proven interventions exist. Leaders now face a choice: Treat NAEP as a catalyst for urgent, evidence-backed action ― or allow its warnings to deepen fatalism about public education.

The Decoding NAEP sessions included:

Decoding NAEP: Behind and Beyond the Headlines. The series launched the week after the 2024 NAEP scores were released with a session that featured journalists, data experts, and community leaders in a discussion of what the NAEP data can — and cannot — tell us about student achievement and the questions educators can be asking as they seek to apply NAEP data wisely.
Who’s Below “Basic” and Why? This session featured a prerecorded interview with Mark Schneider, Ph.D., the former director of the Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education, and a panel conversation that delved into insights from research-informed interventions and promising practices from the field.
Attendance Matters. This session spotlighted the Education Recovery Scorecard report, which builds on the NAEP data to investigate the impact of persistent spikes in chronic absenteeism on achievement, and featured one of the report’s authors as well as national, state, and local leaders who shared strategies they were deploying to boost attendance.
Different Contexts, Different Results? This session engaged leaders from urban, rural, charter, Catholic, and Department of Defense Education Activity schools in a discussion about where they saw progress in learning recovery, what contributed to that progress, the challenges they continue to face in their schools, and their plans for the future.
What Families Know and What We Can Do? Hosted in partnership with National Parents Union, this session featured a panel of parent leaders who discussed the role of data in empowering parents, strengthening advocacy, and ensuring that all children ― especially those furthest from opportunity ― have access to the support they need.
The Perspectives of State Chiefs. This session engaged state chiefs from five states who discussed their roles as the top state education decision-makers, policymakers, and influencers and how they are reacting to the NAEP results, the other assessment tools they are using to measure progress toward proficiency, and their priorities moving forward.
Frontline Educators Reflect on the Pace and Progress of Learning Recovery. This session engaged education leaders and practitioners in a discussion about how they are translating NAEP data into meaningful action.
Beyond the Ballot: Did Child Policy Predictions Hold True? This session reconvened a panel of the education sector’s top leaders to reflect on predictions about the new administration they had shared in early 2025 and included a discussion of NAEP and the need for a new national commitment to student achievement.
Beyond Decoding NAEP: The Federal Role in Promoting Efficacy, Equity, & Accountability. The series culminated in a session in early September that featured two former U.S. Secretaries of Education, representing both sides of the aisle, about the importance of federal leadership focused on student outcomes.